Covington Catholic

CNN Settles Lawsuit With Covington Catholic Student Nick Sandmann

The high school student was falsely accused of racial harassment, and has sued media companies for $800 million.

|

CNN has reached a settlement agreement with Nick Sandmann, the Covington Catholic High School student who was wrongly portrayed in the media as having racially harassed toward a Native American man on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 2019.

The incident was caught on video and widely circulated. The media's collective condemnation of Sandmann and his classmates was deafening, but subsequent video footage showed that the Native American man, Nathan Phillips, had misrepresented the situation in his public statements to news outlets. Reason was among the first to criticize the media's rush to judgment.

Sandmann has sued CNN, The Washington Post, and NBC Universal for $800 million, and his lawyers have promised that additional suits are forthcoming. They had asked for $250 million from CNN: The amount of the settlement was not disclosed.

Sandmann's lawyers stressed that the massive amount of money they are asking for is intended to deter future media misbehavior. Indeed, it would be a good thing if more journalists refrained from tweeting knee-jerk reactions to news developments they don't fully understand, and were slightly more reluctant to escalate small moments involving non-notable people into major national firestorms.

That said, the lawsuits raise free speech concerns. As Reason's Jacob Sullum has observed, there's a difference between unfair press coverage and libel. The media undoubtedly treated the Covington kids unfairly, but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories. If successful, Sandmann's suits could have a chilling effect on necessary and consequential journalism.

In any case, the Covington incident was a debacle for the media, and showed that the tendency of social media to inspire quick reactions is the Achilles' heel of journalism in the digital age.

NEXT: Arizona First Amendment Challenge to Anti-BDS Law Dismissed on Procedural Grounds

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Actual CNN legal argument: “Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false… Sandmann cannot as a matter of law base a defamation claim on this statement as it offers an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.”

    1. “Whether something is an apple or a banana is an expression of opinion so subjective as to be unprovable.”

      1. If being ‘racist’ is an unprovable opinion, there goes the basis of hate crime laws.

        1. That is the way it should be, but I suspect an arbitrary applicability of hate crime law might be considered a feature by its advocates.

        2. All whites are racist.
          Nick Sandmann is white.

          Therefore- well… you do the math.

          1. Therefore Math is an oppressive construct of the patriarchy?

            1. If she’s heavier than a duck, she’s a witch?

              1. ………..yes a WITCH!!!!!! Burn her!!!! — Hilarious!!

          2. Well, that’s why you have to pander and virtue signal. Appearances are important.

            Haha.

    2. “Courts treat statements characterizing people as “racist” as nonactionable opinion because they cannot be proved true or false…”

      So, it would be reckless to characterize someone as racist, as it cannot be proved true or false.
      This should open CNN up to a hell of a lot more defamation suits

    3. The media held out Nick Sandmann in a false light and their action was not mere negligence. They had the actual video and they could see for themselves that they were defaming Nick Sandmann. In fact, Phillips’s second statement looked designed to exculpate the media after CNN spoke with him. Had someone told CNN something which was not videoed and it seemed consistent with the truth and the speaker was a known reliable source, one might then says CNN was careless or reckless. However, those are not the facts of this incident. CNN had the video and it knew that the story which is was reported was rebutted by the video.

      We will never know since we cannot turn back the clock, but it seems likely that if Nick had been wearing a Hillary cap rather than a MAGA cap, CNN would have praised him for smiling in a friendly way to show unity with Native Americans.

      I am not a GOP nor a Trump supporter. Rather, I believe in honesty and Nick Sandmann handled a perplexing situation with a decent mature manner. A honest media is of extreme importance to keeping us free and one reason Trump so easily prevails with his claims of Fake News is the mainstream’s bias.

      If CNN wants to rehabilitate itself, it should issue a written apology and admit that it got it wrong.

      1. Well Said! BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    4. This is what frustrates me Reason.com….. The article by Jacob Sullum in July stating that there is a difference between unfair press coverage and libel, which you even reference in this article, was another example of how journalism is biased. He used the fact that the case with the Washington Post was thrown out, and ironically later reopened and not resolved yet, to prove that what the media did wasn’t libel. But when the case was reopened did he or Reason.com write a retraction stating that the example he used was inaccurate? Um no. Did you in this article attempt to defend his false statement in this current article… YES! If the media had done their jobs, their due diligence to research what actually happened in this incident before letting their mob mentality kick in and their hatred of Trump to overshadow their obligation to be fair and unbiased, then CNN and probably other networks when the smoke clears, would be a lot wealthier. This epidemic of fake news is more rampant than just accidentally reporting false information. It is a blatant disregard in researching the facts on this incident and many many more like it, because it doesn’t fit the narrative they want to tell. Same thing happens with conservative media. Gone are the days where facts are reported and we as intelligent and thoughtful citizens are allowed to make our own decisions. The media in a whole must believe we are ignorant and unable to make logical and fair assessments if they must consistently feed us biased propaganda. Fox Mulder was right… TRUST NO ONE!

  2. I wonder if the truth-tellers at CNN, who give us facts, will let us know how much the settlement was for.

    1. or will CNN even report that they settled

    2. From what I’ve heard from knowledgeable legal pundits, these kinds of settlements pretty much always include comprehensive non-disclosure language which would prohibit either party from telling anyone those kinds of details.

      Would anyone really believe whatever they claimed it was, anyway?

      1. You are correct that they are standard but they are not required. They can also have an agreed upon statement. As an attorney involved in confidentiality agreements, I know defendants generally pay extra on the belief that if people learn the settlement amount, it will encourage more litigation. I suggest that the best way to discourage litigation is to be honest.

        On the other hand, plaintiffs can have an interest in the amount not being disclosed to the public as many people want their finances private. There is a middle ground of an agreed statement where CNN admits to its wrongdoing.

  3. Except, they have reasons to distrust their sources. Just because they intentionally turned their news room into such a air tight bubble they can’t tell the difference between a turd of a source and their own farts, doesn’t suddenly mean they get a pass on what a reasonable person would consider a reliable source or even basic due diligence to verify information.

  4. He was the one who provided bad information to the press. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust

    I found the flaw in your thinking.

    1. If memory serves, they were calling the Covington students racists before Philips was interviewed. Besides, the primary source was the video. How is it not a journalist’s fault if he becomes completely credulous when told something by a Native American elder left wing activist?

      1. Just like the old gypsy woman said!

        1. You gotta stop going to her

    2. Should you just assume that your source is always honest?

      If so, how are reporters any different than stenographers?

      1. Stenographers have to record everything, while journalists can pick and choose their sources in order to craft their narrative.

      2. Damikesc: You win the Internet with that comment! In just one sentence, you said 1 million words. Perfect! Perfect!

    3. You definitely found the flaw. The part you quoted is complete rubbish! Come on Robbie. EVERY source should be distrusted. What kind of shit is this?

    4. Indeed. Trust but… oh what was it? Something important I think.

      1. Verily ’twas important!

        1. Hi SQRLSY.

    5. I’m sorry, Mr. Soave, but this argument is nonsense, and as a reporter, you KNOW IT.

      You have a solemn duty to verify facts before reporting them. Even if Phillips had not been lying through his teeth, he certainly could have been wrong. This is why reporters exist.

      In this case, the reason that it was so egregious is that the facts were present from the beginning. The entire event was live-streamed. It was publically and easily available, and any rational human who watched it would say that Sandman was the VICTIM of racial harassment by the Black Hebrew Israelites, and the confrontation with Phillips was absolutely nothing.

      Furthermore, the organizations being sued had refused to correct their stories after being notified of the error. That compounds their fault. They simply wanted to ruin the lives of children and move on their merry way.

  5. I have no reason to distrust anyone who accuses Fruit Sushi of anything, since I know down in my heart of hearts he is guilty. I’m now libel-proof. Yay!

  6. An ounce of due diligence and investigation on CNN’s part and neither this story nor this lawsuit would have ever seen the light of day.

    But, when your entire job is to drum up left wing propaganda, everything you say is bullshit almost by definition.

    1. Due diligence fades in the face of supporting the narrative.

    2. They were from Kentucky, dude. Kentucky! Not only that, but they were papists.

  7. >>as having racially harassed toward

    one too many words there.

    1. Editors, schmeditors…

    2. I hit the little flag by accident. Sorry. I don’t see a way to undo that.

  8. his lawyers have promised that additional suits are forthcoming

    They better hurry up, because the statute of limitations for defamation in Kentucky is one year.

    1. If he’s suing the WaPo or any other media outlet, he should be able to sue in any jurisdiction where they do business.

      -jcr

  9. also you are blaming Phillips’ recollection and simultaneously asserting the scene was videoed extensively … guns were jumped.

    1. Sharks were jumped.

  10. “That said, the lawsuits raise free speech concerns.”

    The press not being allowed to slander a child based on not knowing what the fuck they’re talking about seems to be a small risk to free speech in my book.

    They have “LAYERS” of editors, do they not?

  11. “If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.”

    You misspelled, “they might have to do some actual reporting.”

    1. Also, I don’t care.

    2. Isn’t special pleading special?

  12. That said, the lawsuits raise free speech concerns. As Reason’s Jacob Sullum has observed, there’s a difference between unfair press coverage and libel. The media undoubtedly treated the Covington kids unfairly, but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/21/us/nathan-phillips-maga-teens-interview/index.html

    Don’t bother reading Phillips’ words in that interview, just read the CNN interviewer absolutely slobbering up everything he was saying, and practically coaching him into saying the things they wanted in the headlines.

    1. You’re right. I just read the questions in sequence and ignored the answers. I think lawyers call it leading the witness. 🙂

  13. I’ll be curious to test out the proposition: If the settlement is sufficiently large, it will be a deterrent to irresponsible reporting, and CNN’s behavior will change.

    1. The proposition is untestable because a key term, “sufficiently large”, is undefined.

  14. “If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.”
    Umm maybe they could just ask the other party what happened? I guess I should be grateful. At least they didn’t use unnamed sources to libel this kid.

    1. What is the standard for “no reason to distrust”? Maybe “It sounded like what I wanted to hear, so I had no reason to distrust it.”

      1. The “no reason to distrust” is one of the stupidist things Robbie has ever written. And I like Robbie.

    2. Soave’s bloody nose impeding my ability to freely swing my arms…

  15. “If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.”

    Bullshit.

    If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them; they would have to actually investigate the rumors fed them by those with agendas to advance, and confirm the allegations with multiple named, reliable, verifiable sources. You know; journalism as opposed to propaganda.

    1. To me it depends on whether you simply pass on what the alleging party is saying (“Phillips said….”) or you are effectively declaring it as factual. I don’t recall what exactly CNN and other media did.

      1. If they simply report “So and so says…” then it isn’t news or journalism. They are free media for a particular viewpoint. They become facebook or twitter or any other platform that simply passes on what the content creator creates.

        News can not and is not simply a one sided issue. As others have said, to do such is propaganda. There is no obligation by CNN to take what Phiilips says and run with it as the sole account of what happened. To do so, again, is simply being Phillip’s media platform at best or propaganda at worst. To knowingly run with a single person’s account of an event they were a part of is nakedly a failure of journalist ethics and should be considered libelous because you are knowingly and purposely reporting a single perspective that by definition you can not know is correct without further investigation that, based on the content by definition, smears another party.

      2. I think anyone who doesn’t say “in my opinion” before calling someone racist should absolutely be found liable for defamation.
        “Robby is racist”
        No, fuck you, that isn’t a fact and you know it’s not a fact. It’s straight up slander.
        “In my opinion, Robby is racist” might not be telling the truth, but it’s not asserting a fact.

        This would improve the country immeasurably

        1. Describing someone else’s state of being is inevitably going to involve some degree of opinion. But I do think certain statements of opinion should be actionable – if they are made with no valid basis in fact and they inflict actual harm.

          David Duke is a racist.
          Louis Farrakhan is a racist.

          I am comfortable I can point to multiple well documented statements from both of those people to substantiate those statements of my opinion. The only real problem is if they have other, more recent statements that might indicate they have changed their own opinion. More importantly I also suspect that neither person could substantiate any actual harm from me offering my opinion. My opinion pretty much being a generally held assessment of both.

    2. Yeah, but then they might have to do things that contradict their own biases and challenge sources that fit their own narratives.

    3. and confirm the allegations with multiple named, reliable, verifiable sources.

      If that is your standard, then you will not uncover the shadowy world of informal power. Is that what you really want?

      1. “If that is your standard, then you will not uncover the shadowy world of informal power.”

        Bullshit. Again.

      2. The shadowy world of informal power is an apt descriptor of media organizations when they are not held to standards of truth or the harms that their disseminated falsehoods inflict.

        You fucking retard.

  16. Didn’t CNN continue with the false narrative for almost a week after the full video became widely public?

  17. Reason was among the first to criticize the media’s rush to judgment.

    Excluding ENB. She was all on board. Still agrees with a now-deleted tweet.

  18. Reason was among the first to criticize the media’s rush to judgment.

    Excluding ENB. She was all on board. Still agrees with a now-deleted tweet.

    link

      1. That’s disturbing. And the comments…

    1. 100% on board with the deleted tweet… nice.

      1. The Bors comic lies that the kids “mocked” Phillips even after the videos are available. The fact that none of the left wingers (and ENB) criticize Phillips while still trying to find something to tar the Covington kids with is revealing. Phillips intentionally created the entire event as protest theater knowing these kids would not be prepared to refute his lies and the media would not be interested in the truth. It’s shocking that even with Phillips’ guilt completely proven the left still will not criticize him but still seeks to taint his victims to further their political interests. They really are terrible people.

        And it all would have worked out for Phillips and the media (and ENB) if only the Black Hebrews hadn’t put their video online.

  19. Libel is not a free speech problem.
    It is one person alleging another did them an injury.
    The fact that the alleged libelers are journalists has no relevence.

    1. Some animals are more equal than others.

    2. “The fact that the alleged libelers are journalists has no relevence.”

      If there were relevance, it would require journalists to be MORE careful, since they are spreading the lies to a larger audience.

  20. The media undoubtedly treated the Covington kids unfairly, but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press.

    I know you troll for clicks. You can’t seriously believe the defamation tort is just for reporting Phillips’ “bad information”.

  21. At the onset, Sandmann’s lawyer offered to drop the lawsuit to anyone who apologized. Against CNN principles to concede they were wrong. The media has responsibilties, too.

    1. I Googled “did alex jones retract sandy hook claim”
      and got
      Alex Jones blames “psychosis” for his Sandy Hook Infowars story – Notorious conspiracy theorist Alex Jones claims a “form of psychosis” caused him to believe that the Sandy Hook massacre was staged.
      sourced to:
      CNN 1 Apr 2019
      Vox 31 Mar 2019
      USA Today 30 Mar 2019
      HuffPost 29 Mar 2019
      The three-hour deposition was posted online Friday by a Texas law firm, Kaster Lynch Farrar & Ball, LLP. Huffpost, which first reported on the deposition, has posted a full transcript online.

      If Alex Jones can admit error, what does it say about CNN et alia’s stances on the Covington Kids/Nathan Phillips kerfuffle?

      1. Psychosis? Ugh…

        But the sad part is that is still lightyears more civilized than what the MSM is doing in this case. If they would just come out and say Mickey Mouse made them do it it would be better than what they are doing now.

  22. I see a trend the last couple of years on Reason, any response to aggression is somehow bad. The media smeared and arguably harmed this kid, even after it was reported their narrative was wrong. But their kid seeking some sort of retribution is a danger to “free speech”.
    An Iranian general, who is demonstrably responsible for American and Iraqi casualties and an attack on the US embassy, who is in a foreign country, meeting with the very people who have killed Americans, is an act of war and an unprovoked assassination.
    Trump saying mean things on Twitter about people who are launching false accusations against him is obstruction of justice (and why doesn’t he just prove his innocence)?
    Next, they’ll be arguing that a woman who shoots her attempted rapists is a murderer.

    1. any response to aggression is somehow bad

      No. Measured, sensible, and proportionate response to aggression is just fine.

      But most of what constitutes “response to aggression” is not measured, not sensible, and unreasonable.

      1. So, what is this kid’s measured response that he could have done against a multi-million dollar media giant?

        1. Type error meant multi-billion.

      2. What is a measured response to someone who is responsible for 600+ American deaths an attack on a US embassy?

      3. What is a measured response when your opponents launch a politically driven, quite likely unconstitutional, investigation where the forgo the presumption of innocence?

      4. No, you’re just a stupid shit with no sense of judgement to begin with Pedo Jeffy . Fuck you and your vague shitweasel statement. Go back to your NAMBLA meeting, or better, just drink Drano.

      5. “No. Measured, sensible, and proportionate response to aggression is just fine.”
        This is the bullshit lefty claim; if you are to respond to aggression, you must stop and decide whether your response is appropriate. In WWII comment boards, some of the Pacific Island battles are ‘inappropriate’ by the allies, since far more Japanese died than did the allies.
        Again, bullshit. If someone is attacking you, they get what you give; they own it as the one who instigated it.
        Jeff is again full of shit.

        “But most of what constitutes “response to aggression” is not measured, not sensible, and unreasonable.”
        Jeff, out chief bullshitter this evening, has decided to be the judge of what is an irrelevant standard.
        Jeff, stuff it up your ass, so your head has some company.

      6. “chemjeff radical individualist
        January.7.2020 at 6:07 pm
        When your response consists of an insult, I know I’ve hit the mark”

        So you’re saying I’m the most correct person on this board for over a decade?

      7. Jeff thinks soleimanis death is way more of an issue than the hundreds of americans and thousands of muslims killed by him. He doesn’t think the death was proportional. Maybe 50k lives would have been okay for Jeff. Maybe 100k.

      8. Measured, sensible, and proportionate response to aggression is just fine.

        This is why we’re still in the Middle East.

  23. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.

    Long before CNN et al piled on the Covington Kids over statements from Nathan Phillips, Phillips had critics within the Indian rights movements over his credibility.

    Long before Mary Mapes, Dan Rather and CBS accepted the “authenticity” of Bill Burkette’s fake memos about GW Bush’s Guard service, Texas journalists had serious doubts about Burkette’s credibility.

    Perhaps journalists should fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they should have vetted for reason to trust their credibility. It might improve the credibility rating for mainstream news.

    Oh, and thanks to Clint Eastwood and Company for reminding us with Richard Jewell.

    1. I don’t think a Jewell is a good example. If you read about the case (“The Suspect” is a good book) you’ll see that the movie is very slanted. There were very good reasons to suspect Jewell. And I don’t think it’s a bad move for the media to report who the FBI believes are suspects.

      1. FBI in almost any case has numerous suspects who turn out to be cleared on further investigation. Matching a vague “profile” is not a good reason to announce to the public anyone as a suspect.

        It is not a good move on the part of the media to report to the public who the FBI merely believes are suspects in the early stages of any investigation.

        The media diversion of public attention to Richard Jewell may very well have aided and abetted Eric Rudolph in his further attacks.

      2. “…And I don’t think it’s a bad move for the media to report who the FBI believes are suspects.”

        So if the FBI has ten suspects and one turns out to be the perp, you’re happy to have nine others suffer for the false claim?
        I certainly hope someone accuses you of child-molestation; you deserve it.

        1. Because the FBI reporting the wrong suspect never leads to the wrongly a caused committing suicide… Oops except when it did.

  24. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.

    Since this wasn’t even a remotely important story even if the account by Nathan Phillips had been 100% accurate (“A random teenage male acted disrespectfully when confronted by a random busybody!”), I’m having a hard time coming up with any concern about any chilling effects.

    The courts are a blunt instrument, but if major media outlets utterly refuse to exercise anything resembling sober editorial judgment, well, hopefully they’ll get Gawkered to death.

    1. > if major media outlets utterly refuse to exercise anything resembling sober editorial judgment, well, hopefully they’ll get Gawkered to death.

      Precisely. They had the whole event on high-quality video, but foolishly chose to listen to Elizabeth Warren’s relative because he told them what they wanted to hear – that a kid they hate (because he’s from a different background and disagrees with them) is an irredeemable racist. I have zero sympathy for them.

      Soave is kidding himself if he thinks those outlets have any interest in honest reporting. If they did, they would have watched the video first.

      1. “…Soave is kidding himself if he thinks those outlets have any interest in honest reporting. If they did, they would have watched the video first.”

        These same ‘publishers’ treated us to nearly three years of blather regarding ‘THE RUSSKIS!!!!!”, and I’ve yet to see a one offer a mea culpa; they simply moved to latest ‘orange man bad’ whine.

    2. Haha. So true. Why would this have been news at all, even if it were accurate? An agenda to divide people?

      That’s deplorable!

    3. The kids were wearing MAGA hats and attending an anti-abortion event. That’s what made it a major media story. They recognized the enemy and zeroed in. It’s also what drove the Jussie Smollett reporting. The Press will not learn is something POTUS has learned and why he has them chasing their tails.

  25. Do “journalists” in the 21st century do anything beyond selecting Twitter feeds and repeating (or reacting to) what others have said?

    1. Reminds me of the South Park when the internet went down and the media was completely paralyzed.

  26. I’ll be interested in how the suit against the Washington Post goes, since they were way more over the top on the “racist teens” narrative than CNN was.

  27. Would someone PLEASE hurt the LIVING FUCK out of my baby feelings, so that I can sue for $800 MILLION DOLLARS, for fuck’s sake? I would be THRILLED to collect 1 part in 1,600 of that!!!

    WHERE is the outrage, at the outrageously lawsuit-lottery-ish nature of our winner-take-all, bullshit randomizer of wealth distribution scheme, here, courtesy of fuckin’ Government Almighty, as usual?

    1. Hearing a leftist like you complain about wealth redistribution (looting) is a wonder to behold. If they didn’t want this to happen, the dumbasses should have watched the video in its entirety instead of taking that teepee dwelling fake Vietnam vet at his word.

      1. Leftist, my ass, pretender at reading my mind! You must be an intergalactic uber-fascist, as I read your mind in turn! Arrogance knows no ends!

        Does $800 million sound like a fair price to ask, for having your baby feelings hurt? Sticks and stones, and all that! Keep in mind that the police and the courts that “adjudicate” these matters, and collect the $800 million, are driven by force-wielding Government Almighty Overlords! “Libertarians for redistribution $800 million for hurt baby feelings”… How does that sound to YOU?

        1. Hi Old Mex.

        2. > Does $800 million sound like a fair price to ask,

          Word has it they settled for $275 million. Tough shit. They should have watched the WHOLE video first.

          1. The article states that they asked for $250 million from CNN. Seems unlikely (to me) that they would settle for more than that. We probably won’t be able to find out the true numbers when the suits are all settled, but I doubt the total will exceed $10 million.

        3. Considering, even after they have been cleared, the Duke Lacrosse it’s been reported still have a difficult time finding meaningful employment and often face public disgrace. But what is the price for misreporting destroying a young person’s whole life?

          1. Those are actually good points! I’d not heard that about the Duke team members… Once a lie is spread, a mere retraction from the news folks doesn’t help much. So I see your point.

            From the above article…

            “…but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.”

            Deep pockets… The major wrong-doer was Phillips. But he doesn’t have $$$millions…

            1. “…The major wrong-doer was Phillips…”

              You.
              Are.
              Full
              Of.
              Shit.

              1. From the article:

                “…but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press.”

                You need to hire on as a writer at Reason.com and do a better job to steer their writings straight!

                Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

                1. You.
                  Are.
                  Full
                  Of.
                  Shit.

            2. The initial misreporting might be forgivable. Their, the medias, continuing the narrative despite exculpatory evidence, is far less forgivable. Once that started, they became the main culprit.

              1. Good point also! Once your goof becomes evident, man (or woman) up to it! Basic decency and ethics! Humility is a GOOD thing!

                (Below is OT or an evolution of thought from the above).

                Woo-Hoo, USA Army names humility as a major leadership value!!!

                https://www.inc.com/chris-matyszczyk/the-us-army-is-promoting-a-contentious-new-leadership-value-heres-why-every-business-leader-should-embrace-it.html
                The U.S. Army Is Promoting A Contentious New Leadership Value. Here’s Why Every Business Leader Should Embrace It
                It’s a word you’ve heard before. But the Army has a very detailed way of describing what it really means.

            3. Yes, I will agree. Phillips bears much of the responsibility. If there had been a correction in a reasonable length of time (as happened on many minor outlets), I would agree with you. However, this was almost comic in how egregious their actions were, most notably in the refusal to retract, correct, or apologize.

              There is a reason that the libel laws include “known or should have known” phrasing. It gives an out for genuine mistakes but punishes people for willful ignorance.

        4. “Does $800 million sound like a fair price to ask, for having your baby feelings hurt?…”

          With any luck, CNN will accuse you of abusing 3 year old kids and you might learn what kind of grief you trivialize.
          My goodness, what a fucking piece of shit you are.

    2. Hi Old Mex.

      1. Hi bottomless asshole. I’m taking a clue from Sarcasmic, and not wrestling with pigs any more. The pigs never listen anyway. They are totally full of their own piggishness, and will NEVER listen!

        1. Sounds like you’ve had all the tequila you need for one night Old Mex.

          1. And you know you lost.

        2. So, if he’s ‘bottomless’ than you’re a bottom, right? Probably a sloppy bottom at that. Taking on all cummers no doubt.

          1. Ugh and then he said he eats…

            Where’s barfman!

    3. PLEASE hurt the LIVING FUCK out of my baby feelings

      It’s revealing you have to pretend damages would not have included education and employment blacklisting.

      Sometimes it seems certain people intentionally misrepresent reality because it’s the only way to support their conclusions. smarter people would realize doing so implies that reality does not support their conclusions. But I suppose if they were smarter they wouldn’t be trying to support stupid conclusions in the first place.

      1. “It’s revealing you have to pretend damages would not have included education and employment blacklisting.”

        I did kinda ignore employment blacklisting, and that is VERY plausible… I do ‘fess up! My bad! Employment blacklisting (stating made-up reasons “why you aren’t qualified”) is, indeed, easy.

        Education blacklisting is FAR less plausible in the USA today! Sure, the educrats will chase you off campus on flimsy ACCUSATIONS of sex misconduct at their school. I have NOT heard of educrats turning down qualified students for enrolling in their schools, on the basis of unfounded news-media hounding. Do you know of any such cases?

  28. I agree with the BHI but they are real potty mouths.

  29. Good for Sandmann, and good for his lawyers.

    Fuck the Enemy of the People

  30. If successful, Sandmann’s suits could have a chilling effect on necessary and consequential journalism.

    The numerous professional embarrassments that news organizations have suffered over the course of the Trump administration has shown that their necessary and consequential biases will not be held in check. We have nothing to worry about from this.

    1. I think we should actively encourage more lawsuits against journalists. They need to be held accountable.

      1. Yeah seriously. Isn’t this the magazine that thinks impeachment for abuse of power SHOULD happen more often?

        If anyone has power it’s journalists, who decide every day what the national conversation is.
        IMPEACH FOR ABUSE OF POWER.

  31. ALL criminals would prefer to settle “out of court”.

    Most don’t have the cash or political connections.

    Justice may be blind, but it can smell money.

  32. Professional standards of ethics for journalists have a chilling effect on their free speech, apparently.

  33. Christ Soave, do you have to be such a suck up?

    ” the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press.”

    Who fucking ran with it like it was the metaphysical truth.

    Do you always and everywhere trust a single source? Is that what you are saying is acceptable? If not please explain how you are different?

    Yes, they got duped, because they are dupes.

    Maybe dupes shouldn’t be doing that job?

    Has any one of them lost their job for being duped so bad?

    1. This lawsuit raises no free speech concerns.

      Your concerns are press privilege.

      Any you can shove that up your ass.

    2. When your goal is the token libertarian position at a left wing publication the most important reassurance you need to give your prospective employers is that you know how to shade your blame to protect them and their customers.

      1. Yep, sucks to have a dead end job in a dying industry.

        Robby might need to learn to code.

  34. If you go to a contractor to do work on your home, and he causes major damage, or of a doctor, through inattention, causes injury you can sue for malpractice.
    This may not be libel, but is clearly malpractice. The doctor and contractor have insurance for this. If CNN do not, they should buy some. If anyone will sell them any after this.

    1. It rose to libel once the whole video became widely available and it was obvious CNN had the wrong narrative, yet they continued with that narrative for almost a week longer before quietly correcting themselves. They have yet to admit they were wrong or apologize. You can be forgiven for making a mistake, not for continuing with that mistake after you have been corrected.

  35. CNN is owned by AT&T now.

    I am sure AT&T does not want this hassle that lingered from the previous owners of CNN.

  36. “…That said, the lawsuits raise free speech concerns. As Reason’s Jacob Sullum has observed, there’s a difference between unfair press coverage and libel. The media undoubtedly treated the Covington kids unfairly, but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories. If successful, Sandmann’s suits could have a chilling effect on necessary and consequential journalism….”

    Then they’re not journalists. This sounds like a cop out to me.

    It sounds irresponsible and juvenile as well. You take one person’s account and run with it? What am I missing here? Aren’t journalists supposed to verify and reverify sources?

    Nah. They went for the narrative. White, all boys and Catholic. It was the trifecta of modern progressive secular reasoning who loathe all three in the context of the zeitgeist. That Philips was a Native American made it all the more juicier that they couldn’t resist. So much so they believed him at face value when he said he fought in Vietnam. Let’s not forget the blonde fake journalist (I forget her name) who interviewed Nick Sandman saying there was something troubling about his smirk in an accusatory tone. As if he was the Son of Sam and a Democrat slave holder rolled into one.

    If it wasn’t for fricken leaked video footage that brought context into everything, the media would have gladly ruined the lives of kids. They did it before with Duke, right? No one would have seen the actual culprits were the Black Israelites and the anointed victim and hallowed saint Philips.

    The editors came all over each other not believing what fell in their laps.

    Good for Covington for persisting. CNN probably saw some wiring on the wall. The actions of the media in this incident was sophomoric and irresponsible.

    1. i just wan to say…if you’re in education and sympathized with the media’s narrative on ANY level I suggest a new career path.

      You don’t do that to children even if it was true. We’re the fucken adults; not them.

      And the media was ready to skin them alive.

    2. “White, all boys and Catholic.”

      Even worse. Anti- abortion Catholic, and wearing a MAGA hat.

      These kids were the MSM equivalent of pharmakoi. Publicly punished for the sins of a wider community.

  37. The media undoubtedly treated the Covington kids unfairly, but the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press.

    I’m pretty sure this is more racist than anything the Covington kids did. Maybe even more racist than anything CNN, WaPo, etc. did.

    1. I like how Philips is casually thrown under the bus. Lol.

      1. Thrown under the bus to assure us of the (predominantly white) media’s infallibility.

        I half expect the next marble to come tumbling out of his head to be a nuanced statement about how Philips lies appealed to and corrupted some poor female reporter’s better sensibilities.

      2. Philips doesn’t hire journolists, he’s expendable.

  38. “If your mother says she loves you, check it out” used to be a thing in journalism.

  39. So a group of black high school kids coming back from a pro-choice rally wearing Hope and Change hats get harassed by Neo-Nazi’s and then confronted by a crazy Westboro baptist preacher who gets one inch form the kids face preaching bible verses.

    The news story would be quite different. And they would not be concerned about a smirk on the kids face

    Good for Sandmann may he get the other asshols too

  40. Libertarians for fraud. Sounds about right.

  41. Seems to me that the MSM has a soapbox several orders of magnitude larger than Phillips or the Black Hebrew Israelites.

    In fact, I think that had the MSM not picked up the story it might never have gone beyond a very niche audience on youtube.

    But the MSM decided to destroy Nick Sandmann’s life by giving a global platform to a man they had not attempted to corroborate at all.

    And they still are.

    In reports they refer to Nick as having ‘blocked a tribal elder’.

    And THAT is why 600 million isn’t enough. Because they haven’t learned a fucking thing.

  42. “…the main culprit here was not CNN or The Washington Post, but Phillips. He was the one who provided bad information to the press. If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust”….. no reason to distrust Phillips??????? you gotta be kidding!

    1. Sorry, don’t review. I agree with this statement and hit a wrong button.

  43. “If journalists have to fear massive libel lawsuits for reporting bad information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust, it might make them wary of covering important stories.”

    Phillips was obviously an activist of some sort. Just why many in the media chose to accept his version of the events as Gospel truth without deeper investigation is the source of their problems with Sandmann’s lawsuits.

    I would be satisfied if the end result of these lawsuits were a complete overhaul of the editorial boards of the NY Times and WaPO, and bring them back to a level of objective reporting, not subjective opinionating.

    1. I’m starting to wonder if there ever was such a thing as ‘objective reporting.’

      It was a noble sentiment and goal and maybe they even achieved it briefly but overall?

      Not sure.

      They’ve always needed to sell and sell narratives.

      Just look at the whole retard freak out about Trump and WWIII with Iran. Media was more than happy to lean sensationalism than ‘objective’.

      I could be wrong.

  44. Really!!! The Clinton News Network trusted Nathan Philips? Really?? If so, it should be taken off the air for pure incompetence. Are they really that stupid? A young boy is not a public figure; he was not doing anything wrong. You use press freedom to defend the attack on a child? Really!!!! I’m sorry I keep saying really but Libertarians are not supposed to be so stupid. They attacked a young boy because they HATE Trump. OK, hate Trump, I don’t care but don’t take it out on an innocent young man. I was tempted to start wearing a MAGA hat to see if I could get some progressive freak to attack me but I couldn’t do it. Sometimes rationality can overcome anger. I only wish the cowardly “journalists” would have had to make an apology on air.

  45. I would have loved to see what Mr. Sandman’s legal team received during discovery phase of the trial. Emails..from high levels at CNN…and even reporters would have been very interesting. The issue is the kid was in DC protesting abortion and wearing a MAGA hat..and that is red meat to the journalist wokes…

    They settled for $50M is what I’m hearing from my legal sources.

    1. Exactly. Did the settlement occur just to keep discovery from happening? My guess is that CNN knew they were cooked because of internal correspondence.

  46. I’ll congratulate the kid and his attorney’s for kicking CNN’s worthless, lying, leftard asses, but had I been in the kid’s shoes I wouldn’t accept any settlement that didn’t require a full, abject apology from CNN on the air, during prime time. They lied, they defamed the kid, they tried to cover up their lies, and they made money from lying about the whole situation.

    -jcr

  47. “information supplied to them by sources they had no reason to distrust”

    Wrong. Phillips is an activist. Activists lie. Anyone who does not know that should be issued a crayon instead of a pen. Running a story based on a single source, with no effort to check the source is grossly irresponsible. When that story puts someone in a bad light, it is libel.

    But they also ran it with a picture, from a video that proves Phillips was lying.

Please to post comments